Yet have no problem using illogical emotion to convince your self that a baby is not a baby.
Have a problem with fetus destruction?
That’s an interesting declaration. Especially given the post I responded to.
You whined about him comparing choice to kill a baby to a crime.
I believe in science.
Not mythical stories, that many cling to with their feelings.
As you do.
You aren’t going to like how the theory ends.
And just so you’ll know, you’re just as emotional as anybody else. More than most.
Believe it or not, just because you say something, does not make it true.
You cling to 2000 year old fables, I rely on science.
I admit I am passionate about my beliefs.
It’s not because I say it’s true, lib.
You don’t “rely on science”. You rely on emotion and confirmation bias. Emotionology.
You are asking gooddad if he thinks that banning abortion would make it stop. There is a less than 0.001% chance that he believes that. What he does believe is that banning abortion will make it less common. And I think you know this, too.
Alongside asking him if he believed that banning abortion would make it stop, you said that banning abortion will result in women using alternative abortion methods that are less safe than what is available when abortion is legal. This isn’t a problem for his stance. If an activity is wrong in such a way that it ought to be illegal, then it is does not matter if people get hurt doing this immoral activity. If the activity is not wrong, then there is no need to bring safety concerns into this.
I know. That is why each mock question ended with “or make it less common”.
I didn’t realize at the time that I made that post that I did not address the thing about safety as I was intending. I instead addressed the separate but related issue of arguments about laws not “stopping” an activity.
The issue is that the argument from safety you are using is neither necessary nor sufficient for justifying your stance (which is also my stance).
Emotion may be involved, but it doesn’t have to be. Science cannot produce an answer either way on the issue he is claiming it (science) can produce an answer for.
Emotion is always involved in politics, especially at the national level. It’s no different than religion.
Ok…I hear what you are saying.
I am not clear on the evidence, that abortion overall will be that much less common if banned.
Does that also take into account the amount of injuries/deaths that will happen due to desperate people taking desperate actions?
Also, how much something like this effects for the poor, vs those with the means to get BC, and/or if an abortion is chosen.
But you are sure about it with guns?
Am I sure guns primary purpose is to kill something? Yes.
I do not share your interpretation of the 2nd, but I have no desire to ban guns.
What’s the primary purpose of abortion?
To terminate a pregnancy.
So we should ignore it? The constitution is incredibly short. I don’t think we should assume any part is meaningless just because it’s hard to put into practice.
To kill babies actually. Over 60 ,000,000 so far. Disgraceful.
It’s not just hard to put into practice, it’s impossible.
What it says is that there are other rights not mentioned in the constitution. OK- What are they.
It doesn’t say. It doesn’t even give a hint.
It was inserted, because the framers were afraid that a bill of rights might make people assume that if a right wasn’t listed, it didn’t exist.
I “apologize” for thinking you were one of the good guys.
For starters, you could look to what the writers thought were rights and what they were trying to protect against in what they did include. It’s an uncertain science but it’s better than literally doing what the 9th is there to stop us from doing–acting as if only the written rights exist.
The 9th singles out no specific rights. Anyone can go anywhere with it. Some of them have.
